Possible Prohormone Ban: Read Here!
12-05-2002 03:41 AM
Oh Horse ****. The damn government trying to regulate crap they don't know about again. Thanks for the post ww7. I read it awhile back and I still don't like it. Like someone said with prohibition and it got repealed. I just wish the government would really think before it acts on this. The safe think that could be considered is setting an age limit of 18 or 21 on buying ph related products if they are that damn worried about it. It just pisses me off. Better stock up.
12-12-2002 04:31 PM
The following excerpt from the Washington Post is interesting. It is titled "New Steroids Sold Over Counter" and is talking about 1-test and steroid precursors:
DEA officials are outraged over the emergence of these products and the blatancy of some of the advertising, but they say they are powerless to prevent their distribution unless the steroids they contain are added to the Anabolic Steroids Control Act of 1990. Because of the relative anonymity of the new steroids and the lack of medical data on their effects, DEA officials say it could take MONTHS, OR EVEN YEARS, for that to happen.
The Food and Drug Administration says its hands are similarly tied. Under the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health Education Act (DSHEA), it must prove a supplement is a health hazard before removing it from the market. Though extensive research shows that anabolic steroids can have a multitude of troubling side effects, because the new steroids have not specifically been studied, the same body of evidence does not exist for them.
"What we don't have is a lot of science to help us understand if there is a safety issue," said Christine Taylor, director of the FDA's Office of Nutritional Products, Labeling and Dietary Supplements. "We are concerned and monitoring the situation."
HERE is a link to the whole article:
12-12-2002 04:33 PM
Here's another good quote from the Washington post article:
"Where is the societal damage?" said Syntrax Innovations' Derek Cornelius, who discovered the first nandrolone precursor. "If there was a health problem, the FDA has plenty of recourse it could take in the market. We're all up in arms about something that causes acne and maybe 10,000 people use it? . . . They would have a point if people were having bad side effects, if people were dying in hospitals, but it's not happening. It's like making an issue out of something that's not."
03-26-2003 04:16 PM
Whats the latest on the prohormone ban??
I was wondering what the latest news was on the prohormone ban?? I havent heard anything lately and I want to stay informed. What process has to take place in order for them to be banned?
03-26-2003 06:17 PM
I think weve got another 1-2 yrs in our blessed utopia before it comes back around again.
03-27-2003 09:34 AM
<B>Title:</B> To amend the Controlled Substances Act with respect to the placing of certain substances on the schedules of controlled substances, and for other purposes.
<B>Sponsor: </B>Rep Sweeney, John E. [NY-20] (introduced 1/7/2003) <B>Cosponsors: </B>8
<B>Latest Major Action: </B>3/6/2003 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.</LACTD></LACT>
The cosponsers have grown to 8 and now its in committee with the Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security people! LOL! This is definatley integral to Homeland Security.
03-27-2003 03:18 PM
03-27-2003 07:08 PM
Please read this
Copy and paste this into your browser. The PH ban thing has been kinda of quiet, well it isn't anymore. You must demand a stop to this. The only way to do this is via the USFA.biz. I URGE you to do as much as you can about getting the word out. It looks as if congress is attempting to join a PH and ephedra bill. This is not good.
I know a lot of you have been kept out of the loop. I'll be posting other link/updates soon.
Last edited by jweave23; 03-28-2003 at 12:17 AM.
03-27-2003 07:11 PM
Running with the Big Boys
Thanks for the info Mike we appreciate it...
03-27-2003 07:15 PM
Neither link works for me.
03-27-2003 07:25 PM
There is now a forum at the usfa.biz website that contains updates. Quite a bit of info was posted during March. I'm afraid the news isn't good. Rick Collins plans to provide a weekly update from now on. Here is the link for the forum:
03-27-2003 07:34 PM
LMAO! Yep, it just got handed over to the committe of homeland security for review!
03-27-2003 08:21 PM
Brewing Anabolic Minds
Neither link works...please repost or email me the full links and I'll get them in there.
03-27-2003 10:10 PM
03-27-2003 11:14 PM
Im sorry but what in the hell do home land security and prohormones have in common? Wouldnt the FDA be handeling this situation?
03-27-2003 11:16 PM
Man...Land of the what? The FREE? It sucks when ignorance defines the constraints of Freedom. How do prohormones have anything to do with homeland security? Are they afraid someone is take a crop duster and spray One+ all over new york city and create a metropolis full of super sized stock broker freaks?
03-28-2003 12:48 AM
I could care less...Id rather use real anabolics.
But I see people here who bust there ass and don't want to pin and this ban might cause a increase in steroid useage. Its counter productive. Why not ban sales to minors.
See thats whats ****ed up in America, smoking is way more deadly for you then godamn prohormones yet they let it flourish. WTF?
03-28-2003 09:58 AM
Thats simple, the gov makes a TON off of cigarette sales. If it was a big enough markey, I guarantee you they would simply tax the hell out of it and move on
03-28-2003 10:31 AM
Agreed. If there was enough money for the govt to make off of PH's, this wouldn't be an issue, period. Originally posted by wardog Thats simple, the gov makes a TON off of cigarette sales. If it was a big enough markey, I guarantee you they would simply tax the hell out of it and move on
03-28-2003 06:27 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- U.S. lawmakers Tuesday questioned regulators about their oversight of steroid-related products sold as dietary supplements and sought information from two makers of weight-loss remedies they said were marketed for children.
The lawmakers wrote to the Food and Drug Administration and the Drug Enforcement Administration expressing concerns that dietary supplement makers are selling products that may be more powerful than banned anabolic steroids.
They said they are seeking information about what the FDA and DEA are doing to address the availability of pro-steroids, recently discovered substances that act similar to testosterone, and precursor steroids, which appear to combine with natural substances in the body to form an illegal steroid.
The 1990 act that banned anabolic steroids does not specifically outlaw either substance.
"Thus, some dietary supplement manufacturers appear to have exploited loopholes in the act and develop steroids that may, in fact, be more powerful that the ones Congress banned in 1990," members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee wrote. The lawmakers said they were "concerned that current law may not be sufficient to empower agencies, such as FDA and DEA, to regulate or, when appropriate, ban these substances."
The letter was signed by committee leaders including Louisiana Republican Rep. Billy Tauzin, the chairman, and Michigan Democrat Rep. John Dingell, the panel's leading Democrat.
The FDA has been evaluating how to classify the steroid-related products and will respond to the lawmakers' letter, an agency spokeswoman said.
Separately, the lawmakers said they were expanding a probe of a supplement called Skinny Pill for Kids. They wrote to Edita Kaye, president of The Skinny Pill in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida, demanding answers to questions about the product's development and marketing.
If answers to the panel's questions are not provided by April 4, "we will consider issuing a subpoena compelling such production and your appearance before this committee to answer questions," the lawmakers wrote.
Kaye could not immediately be reached for comment.
The lawmakers also asked Basic Research LLC in Provo, Utah, to provide documentation about the origins and safety of its product called PediaLean.
Daniel Mowrey, director of scientific affairs for Basic Research, said PediaLean contains a natural fiber called glucomannan and is marketed for helping children ages 6 to 16 lose weight. A clinical study in Italy found the product reduced weight without significant side effects, he said.
Mowrey said the company would respond to the lawmakers' request for information.
Similar Forum Threads
By punthra in forum Anabolics
Last Post: 03-09-2009, 07:55 PM
By Guest in forum Anabolics
Last Post: 06-25-2005, 01:10 AM
By Cracker2 in forum Anabolics
Last Post: 09-24-2003, 11:33 AM